The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

How about a victim of incest? How about a victim of incest who kills the one abusing him/her? Two wrongs do not make a right; however, the US legal system can take into account crimes committed under duress, under fear and under intimidation. If a woman killed a relative who committed incest, should she rot in a jail cell? If a woman killed her own child conceived due to incest, does she deserve the death penalty?

The justice system should have something in place to determine "just kill". So if someone is committed of murder, they could then proceed to a trial that determines if it was a just kill.

Also no, if you kill a child that is a result of incest, you are a murderer and belong in prison. If a woman has an abortion just because she was raped or it was due to incest, it's still a baby that is being killed. (I would argue the mother that had the abortion doesn't belong in prison, but here we are talking about a 2 year old girl, that goes beyond abortion)

It goes beyond abortion, how so?

I don't believe women that have abortions should be put in prison for doing so. That doesn't mean I don't value the life of the aborted child. But if a mother (or anyone else) deliberately commits filicide against a born child, then that mother belongs in prison.

Think about it, the unborn child doesn't have a voice, sadly, the woman that has an abortion often doesn't realize she is committing murder. But in a case like Casey Anthony, her daughter is clearly, CLEARLY a living human being that is alive, intelligent and breathing. Her daughter could look her in the eyes and cry "Mommy, Why?" and ask her mom why she was hurting her...Casey Anthony knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was killing a child. Whether or not it was due to incest is irrelevant.

-Think of it this way... Women that have abortions are told by doctors and by society that the child in their womb is not actually a child, it's just a fetus, and therefore it isn't wrong to terminate it. So a woman who becomes impregnated due to incest or rape is more likely to have an abortion because she has been taught to think that it isn't a human being yet.-However, women who have had a child, and it has breathed it's first breath, cried its first tears, seen light for the first time, women who have these children know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that is a living, breathing human being just like them.

In both cases, it would be murder of an innocent human being. But there is a difference, because in one case, the person may not realize that the fetus (who doesn't have a voice) is a living human being. But in the other, it is absolutely clear that it is a human being.

Unless Casey were insane, there is nothing that could excuse the murder of one's own child.

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Children can die suddenly and the symptoms of death mimic those of child abuse. Casey Anthony's father (former police officer) knew how the legal system operated and "for all we know" anticipated his daughter's arrest and prosecution. By Casey's sentencing, the judge will likely give Casey credit for almost 3 years behind bars and release her back to whatever lifestyle Casey pursued before becoming pregnant and giving birth to Caylee. Plus, Casey can apply for a pardon and some FL governor will likely grant her that pardon....

If that'll be the case, then I sincerely hope she is shunned in society. Of course, I have no doubt that'd happen. See how she likes her new life when people won't have anything to do with her...

Hold on while I check my Bible for where Christ said to shun people because they screwed up (for the sake of argument, I'll make the assumption that she actually did do it).

Really? I mean...really? And you can say whatever you want about me and what I'm saying here but we're going down a bad path saying stuff like this.

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

I don't disagree there are consequences. That's true, but hoping that someone suffers consequences is a little dangerous. In addition to forgiving her and praying for her, there is also loving her. Hoping she is shunned doesn't fit with loving her. The goverenmnet's job is to deal with the worldly justice. Our Chrisitan duty, however, is on a different level.

At least she was tried, unlike the millions of other women that murder their childen with impunity in this country.

The lamp of Diogenes is barely a flicker in this Babylon night.

Selam

Logged

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Aren't we in the US at war or something?

Thank you.

I would also like to add that this kind of thing happens at least weekly in my city, only the victim isn't a cute little white girl with big eyes.

Whites are generally held to a much higher standard. Ask yourself why that is.

And the media doesn't report the non-White crimes purposely.

Not because their audience doesn't care - but because they don't want Americans to know the true extent of all of this.

Logged

“If my sons did not want war, there would be none.” - Gutle Schnapper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - J. Edgar Hoover

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

How about a victim of incest? How about a victim of incest who kills the one abusing him/her? Two wrongs do not make a right; however, the US legal system can take into account crimes committed under duress, under fear and under intimidation. If a woman killed a relative who committed incest, should she rot in a jail cell? If a woman killed her own child conceived due to incest, does she deserve the death penalty?

The justice system should have something in place to determine "just kill". So if someone is committed of murder, they could then proceed to a trial that determines if it was a just kill.

Also no, if you kill a child that is a result of incest, you are a murderer and belong in prison. If a woman has an abortion just because she was raped or it was due to incest, it's still a baby that is being killed. (I would argue the mother that had the abortion doesn't belong in prison, but here we are talking about a 2 year old girl, that goes beyond abortion)

It goes beyond abortion, how so?

I don't believe women that have abortions should be put in prison for doing so. That doesn't mean I don't value the life of the aborted child. But if a mother (or anyone else) deliberately commits filicide against a born child, then that mother belongs in prison.

Think about it, the unborn child doesn't have a voice, sadly, the woman that has an abortion often doesn't realize she is committing murder. But in a case like Casey Anthony, her daughter is clearly, CLEARLY a living human being that is alive, intelligent and breathing. Her daughter could look her in the eyes and cry "Mommy, Why?" and ask her mom why she was hurting her...Casey Anthony knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was killing a child. Whether or not it was due to incest is irrelevant.

Unless Casey were insane, there is nothing that could excuse the murder of one's own child.

You don't believe years and decades of incest can render a woman insane?

Note that while the defense's allegations that Caylee was a product of incest were not totally repudiated, they did create reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. There are still 3 people who can be tried for Caylee's murder if the State can provide beyond a reasonable doubt that any or all of those 3 people committed the crime. The family had a chance to sell out Casey on the stand and they didn't and perhaps blood is thicker than water....

Its not callous at all. Does incest or rape make the child any less valuable to the Lord? Does it make it less deserving of life?

I wont debate the legality of abortion, but from a human standpoint, the method of creation, to me, does not matter.

Quote

The family had a chance to sell out Casey on the stand and they didn't and perhaps blood is thicker than water....

I dont know many mothers would would NOT lie for their kid in a life or death case like this.

I was at service last night and my priest said something simple, yet profound. We were discussing how bad of a person Casey probably was and the priest said plainly, "Would you compare your sins to hers? Are you that sure of yourselves? Would you cast the first stone?" We quickly changes subjects

primuspilus

primuspilus

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Just because the church chooses to remain silent doesn't mean I am obligated to do the same. The church allows me to form my own opinions on matters like this.

The Church is against the death penalty; so am I; everyone else here has his/her own opinions on the matter which may or may not contradict the Church's teachings.

If it was clearly pre-meditated then the death penalty might no be excessive. But if they could prove it wasn't pre-meditated and that Casey had underlying problems due to abuse and incest, then they could easily plead her down to life in prison.

The Church is against the death penalty? That's news to me... Maybe you should do a look through history...

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

How about a victim of incest? How about a victim of incest who kills the one abusing him/her? Two wrongs do not make a right; however, the US legal system can take into account crimes committed under duress, under fear and under intimidation. If a woman killed a relative who committed incest, should she rot in a jail cell? If a woman killed her own child conceived due to incest, does she deserve the death penalty?

The justice system should have something in place to determine "just kill". So if someone is committed of murder, they could then proceed to a trial that determines if it was a just kill.

Also no, if you kill a child that is a result of incest, you are a murderer and belong in prison. If a woman has an abortion just because she was raped or it was due to incest, it's still a baby that is being killed. (I would argue the mother that had the abortion doesn't belong in prison, but here we are talking about a 2 year old girl, that goes beyond abortion)

It goes beyond abortion, how so?

I don't believe women that have abortions should be put in prison for doing so. That doesn't mean I don't value the life of the aborted child. But if a mother (or anyone else) deliberately commits filicide against a born child, then that mother belongs in prison.

Think about it, the unborn child doesn't have a voice, sadly, the woman that has an abortion often doesn't realize she is committing murder. But in a case like Casey Anthony, her daughter is clearly, CLEARLY a living human being that is alive, intelligent and breathing. Her daughter could look her in the eyes and cry "Mommy, Why?" and ask her mom why she was hurting her...Casey Anthony knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was killing a child. Whether or not it was due to incest is irrelevant.

Unless Casey were insane, there is nothing that could excuse the murder of one's own child.

You don't believe years and decades of incest can render a woman insane?

Note that while the defense's allegations that Caylee was a product of incest were not totally repudiated, they did create reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. There are still 3 people who can be tried for Caylee's murder if the State can provide beyond a reasonable doubt that any or all of those 3 people committed the crime. The family had a chance to sell out Casey on the stand and they didn't and perhaps blood is thicker than water....

Not really it isn't. She committed murder, even if she was the victim of incest, do you think that makes her filicide tolerable or justifiable?

There is a difference between insanity and an emotional/mental disorder. I believe it can tear someone apart, but not to the level of insanity. I know someone who was the subject of active abuse in their family, they are not insane, they have problems, but none of their problems should get them off a murder charge. (unless they killed the person who was hurting them)

If person A sexually abuses person B, so much so that person B becomes emotionally and mentally wounded, does that give person B the right to kill person C?

You fail to see why this troubles me? So, if the state can't win a criminal case, individuals should then bring a civil case where the standards of evidence are more in the prosecution's favor? Can you imagine if that happened every time the state lost a jury trial? Granted, I know such will not happen. But, that would really distort the sense of equality under the law. If the state fails and if you have money, sue them! Double jeopardy is a check on an overzealous state to deprive the individual of his/her constitutional liberties, but just because the state fails does not grant an individual the responsibility to carry out what the state could not.

That being said, aren't we already in an over-litigious country as it is? Do we really need MORE trials?

Okay, I think I follow.

The right to bring a civil action belongs to the "victim", though, not the state. Indeed, where the state declines to bring a criminal prosecution for lack of evidence or some more nefarious reason, the civil suit is often the only remedy available to the victim (and arguably the only means of punishing the wrong-doer).

Also, the stress of being indicted for a criminal offence is arguably not as great as the threat of having to hand over some money. Doesn't the double jeopardy principle exist to spare the accused from the pain of having to live out a criminal trial all over again? A civil suit is a different creature to a criminal trial, though I'm sure it is quite stressful being sued!

I doubt a civil lawsuit will even be an issue here because of a fundamental difference with the OJ trial: OJ actually had money to loose. This young girl didn't have much to start out with and has spent the last two and a half years in jail and, as the old saying goes, you can't get milk from a turnip.

With that said, I do have a fundamental objection to our system of torts. Torts should be restricted to real and proven financial loss. So to apply to a wrongful death lawsuit, if someone were responsible for a family's primary breadwinner's death, the family should be able to sue to for an amount comparable to lost wages...but for the loss of a child, yes there is great emotional harm done, but limited financial harm, in fact the family's financial state is probably improved without having to care for the child so there should be no standing for a civil lawsuit. I know it sounds cold, but we are in dire need of tort reform and some pragmatic reforms would benefit our entire economy from small businesses to the healthcare industry.

But even then, being able to bring a civil lawsuit against someone for a crime of which they were acquitted in criminal court does smack of double jeopardy, just like the feds being able to bring a civil rights charge against an individual that was acquitted of the same crime by the state court smacks of double jeopardy. Both of these are anomalies in our legal system that have arisen from the mob's desire for revenge rather than from a well ordered system of justice.

You fail to see why this troubles me? So, if the state can't win a criminal case, individuals should then bring a civil case where the standards of evidence are more in the prosecution's favor? Can you imagine if that happened every time the state lost a jury trial? Granted, I know such will not happen. But, that would really distort the sense of equality under the law. If the state fails and if you have money, sue them! Double jeopardy is a check on an overzealous state to deprive the individual of his/her constitutional liberties, but just because the state fails does not grant an individual the responsibility to carry out what the state could not.

That being said, aren't we already in an over-litigious country as it is? Do we really need MORE trials?

Okay, I think I follow.

The right to bring a civil action belongs to the "victim", though, not the state. Indeed, where the state declines to bring a criminal prosecution for lack of evidence or some more nefarious reason, the civil suit is often the only remedy available to the victim (and arguably the only means of punishing the wrong-doer).

Also, the stress of being indicted for a criminal offence is arguably not as great as the threat of having to hand over some money. Doesn't the double jeopardy principle exist to spare the accused from the pain of having to live out a criminal trial all over again? A civil suit is a different creature to a criminal trial, though I'm sure it is quite stressful being sued!

I doubt a civil lawsuit will even be an issue here because of a fundamental difference with the OJ trial: OJ actually had money to loose. This young girl didn't have much to start out with and has spent the last two and a half years in jail and, as the old saying goes, you can't get milk from a turnip.

With that said, I do have a fundamental objection to our system of torts. Torts should be restricted to real and proven financial loss. So to apply to a wrongful death lawsuit, if someone were responsible for a family's primary breadwinner's death, the family should be able to sue to for an amount comparable to lost wages...but for the loss of a child, yes there is great emotional harm done, but limited financial harm, in fact the family's financial state is probably improved without having to care for the child so there should be no standing for a civil lawsuit. I know it sounds cold, but we are in dire need of tort reform and some pragmatic reforms would benefit our entire economy from small businesses to the healthcare industry.

But even then, being able to bring a civil lawsuit against someone for a crime of which they were acquitted in criminal court does smack of double jeopardy, just like the feds being able to bring a civil rights charge against an individual that was acquitted of the same crime by the state court smacks of double jeopardy. Both of these are anomalies in our legal system that have arisen from the mob's desire for revenge rather than from a well ordered system of justice.

Financial penalty can be punitive in nature, not just to require lost wealth. Losing money can hurt just as bad, if not worse , than jail time.

It's not double jeopardy because the defendant is charged with different crimes. Also, the nature of proof is different. For a criminal case, the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt, the shouldn't be found guilty. For a criminal, there can be doubt, but there must be linked cause and liability.

Financial penalty can be punitive in nature, not just to require lost wealth. Losing money can hurt just as bad, if not worse , than jail time.

Only for the upper middle class, if you're in the class of people who doesn't even have a bank account and lives paycheck to paycheck below the poverty line and would never even dream of being able to get a loan, or as in here case, has no personal wealth or even a means to generate wealth and relies on others to live, a civil lawsuit is just a minor annoyance.

Your statement betrays your class and lifestyle and demonstrates that you're out of touch with the majority of the population. Civil lawsuits have always been a major threat only to the wealthy.

Quote

It's not double jeopardy because the defendant is charged with different crimes. Also, the nature of proof is different. For a criminal case, the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt, the shouldn't be found guilty. For a criminal, there can be doubt, but there must be linked cause and liability.

It is double jeopardy to retry someone for different crimes related to the same act, which is why the state has lost the option to bring an involuntary manslaughter case against here, even though she was not accused of that in this trial. Allowing a retrial based on different standards of evidence is a loophole SCOTUS has allowed based on the literal reading of the constitution only prohibiting double jeopardy in case of threat to 'life or limb' to not include financial penalty. But it remains contrary to good jurisprudence and, truth be told, the loophole only exists because the authors of the bill of rights decided to be a little too poetic in their writing of the fifth amendment.

Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Aren't we in the US at war or something?

Thank you.

I would also like to add that this kind of thing happens at least weekly in my city, only the victim isn't a cute little white girl with big eyes.

Whites are generally held to a much higher standard. Ask yourself why that is.

Not really it isn't. She committed murder, even if she was the victim of incest, do you think that makes her filicide tolerable or justifiable?

First of all, lest you forget, she was declared NOT GUILTY by a jury of her peers; they didn't merely rule that the prosecution failed to prove there case as would have been the case in the Scottish Verdict, they declared her not guilty. So I would kindly ask you to prove she's guilty before making such libelous accusations, the prosecution couldn't prove her guilt and I doubt you can either.

Quote

There is a difference between insanity and an emotional/mental disorder. I believe it can tear someone apart, but not to the level of insanity. I know someone who was the subject of active abuse in their family, they are not insane, they have problems, but none of their problems should get them off a murder charge. (unless they killed the person who was hurting them)

If person A sexually abuses person B, so much so that person B becomes emotionally and mentally wounded, does that give person B the right to kill person C?

You're missing the point, extenuating circumstances is not a matter of justifying murder, it's a matter of judging the culpability of a given individual in the murder. Just as no sane person would even dream of holding a 5 year old responsible for murder (there was a case in the news to that extent not too long ago, a little girl of 5 or 6 drowned a toddler because he wouldn't stop crying), likewise if someone's mental capacity is so diminished at the time of the crime that they are no more capable of social and legal judgements than a 5 year old it would not be reasonable to treat the crime any differently than had a 5 year old committed it.

Of course, this is all moot relative to this trial since the position the defense successfully was NOT that she murdered her child and that her incestuous past should be taken into account as an extenuating circumstance, but rather that she had been trained to lie because of her incestuous past and therefore did so compulsively and that her statements to the police should be seen in that light. The jury agreed and dismissed her statements as panic (and being in the courtroom for the entire trial, they probably know better than any of us on this board, which is why a jury decides guilt and innocence rather than putting the case to the vote of a lynch mob); however, they did not justify her lying, she was convicted on four counts of providing false statements, they just realized that the circumstances made the content of her statements irrelevant to the murder trial at hand.

Not really it isn't. She committed murder, even if she was the victim of incest, do you think that makes her filicide tolerable or justifiable?

If person A sexually abuses person B, so much so that person B becomes emotionally and mentally wounded, does that give person B the right to kill person C?

That is why the insanity defense exists. Casey's defense team didn't exercise such a defense because their client participated in her own defense in that she had nothing to do with the death of Caylee. Casey's dysfunctional family kept whatever secrets they had intact. Hence, time to move on to the next case Nancy Grace wants to shrill about.

Financial penalty can be punitive in nature, not just to require lost wealth. Losing money can hurt just as bad, if not worse , than jail time.

Only for the upper middle class, if you're in the class of people who doesn't even have a bank account and lives paycheck to paycheck below the poverty line and would never even dream of being able to get a loan, or as in here case, has no personal wealth or even a means to generate wealth and relies on others to live, a civil lawsuit is just a minor annoyance.

Your statement betrays your class and lifestyle and demonstrates that you're out of touch with the majority of the population. Civil lawsuits have always been a major threat only to the wealthy.

Financial penalty harms all sides. The amount of damage is both commensurate to the crime and, quite often, the financial abilities of the defendant. If the crime was financial in nature, then the penalty will typically match the crime. If charge is punitive in nature, the financial burden is often issued as capable to offer punishment, and prorated to the financial capabilities. That is, a more wealthy person would require more of a burden to be considered punitive.

Of course being found guilt requires the person to be painfully liable, if not fully GUILTY. If you don't like punitive burdens, then don't break the law.

Your last statement is a joke. It betrays your ideological prejudice, as well as your desire to reclassify and incriminate anyone who doesn't agree with you.

It's not double jeopardy because the defendant is charged with different crimes. Also, the nature of proof is different. For a criminal case, the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt, the shouldn't be found guilty. For a criminal, there can be doubt, but there must be linked cause and liability.

It is double jeopardy to retry someone for different crimes related to the same act, which is why the state has lost the option to bring an involuntary manslaughter case against here, even though she was not accused of that in this trial. Allowing a retrial based on different standards of evidence is a loophole SCOTUS has allowed based on the literal reading of the constitution only prohibiting double jeopardy in case of threat to 'life or limb' to not include financial penalty. But it remains contrary to good jurisprudence and, truth be told, the loophole only exists because the authors of the bill of rights decided to be a little too poetic in their writing of the fifth amendment.

No, it is double jeopardy to try someone twice for the same crime. There is a difference.

Its not callous at all. Does incest or rape make the child any less valuable to the Lord? Does it make it less deserving of life?

Have you ever been to West Virginia or Appalachia where there are generations after generations of people conceived in incest? You are correct in that a child conceived in incest is no less valuable to the Lord and no less deserving of life than someone not conceived in incest. However, those born due to incest face greater health issues and premature death.

I dont know many mothers would would NOT lie for their kid in a life or death case like this.

I was at service last night and my priest said something simple, yet profound. We were discussing how bad of a person Casey probably was and the priest said plainly, "Would you compare your sins to hers? Are you that sure of yourselves? Would you cast the first stone?" We quickly changes subjects

Ideally, we shouldn't be discussing high profile criminal trials on this forum. We did and your Priest is right - I wouldn't throw the first, second, thousandth, etc. stone at Casey.

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

Its not callous at all. Does incest or rape make the child any less valuable to the Lord? Does it make it less deserving of life?

Have you ever been to West Virginia or Appalachia where there are generations after generations of people conceived in incest? You are correct in that a child conceived in incest is no less valuable to the Lord and no less deserving of life than someone not conceived in incest. However, those born due to incest face greater health issues and premature death.

I dont know many mothers would would NOT lie for their kid in a life or death case like this.

I was at service last night and my priest said something simple, yet profound. We were discussing how bad of a person Casey probably was and the priest said plainly, "Would you compare your sins to hers? Are you that sure of yourselves? Would you cast the first stone?" We quickly changes subjects

Ideally, we shouldn't be discussing high profile criminal trials on this forum. We did and your Priest is right - I wouldn't throw the first, second, thousandth, etc. stone at Casey.

That DOESN'T give the mother the right to kill her own child! Don't you see that?

So what if a child is sick, retarded, or in risk of premature death? That absolutely never gives us the right to take their life, EVER!

Abortion and filicide are NEVER EVER JUSTIFIED IN ANY SITUATION, EVER!!!!

The 12 jurors are remaining mute on the subject, but an alternate, Russell Huekler, who came to the same conclusion as the 12 did speak to the press today and provides some good insight into the thought process of the Jury, here are some quotes from him in an article I came across:

Quote

The prosecution failed to prove their case and there was reasonable doubt. Again, they didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive. I'm sorry people feel that way. ... These were 17 total jurors. They really listened to this case and kept an open mind.

...

The first number of witnesses were Casey's friend and every time that they said they saw Casey with Caylee, it was a loving relationship and no one provided evidence to the contrary

...

Yeah, the behavior was bizarre, but what I took from that is that the family was very dysfunctional. Because they were so dysfunctional, that was the norm for them. Casey didn't just start lying for the first 31 days [after Caylee disappeared]. She had been lying for the past two years...I felt it was the norm for her

I guess it came down to the fact that the prosecution couldn't even prove that a homicide occurred; a jury can hardly convict someone of murder if they can't even be convinced that a murder took place, looks like accidental drowning is the most likely cause of death.

The 12 jurors are remaining mute on the subject, but an alternate, Russell Huekler, who came to the same conclusion as the 12 did speak to the press today and provides some good insight into the thought process of the Jury, here are some quotes from him in an article I came across:

Quote

The prosecution failed to prove their case and there was reasonable doubt. Again, they didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive. I'm sorry people feel that way. ... These were 17 total jurors. They really listened to this case and kept an open mind.

...

The first number of witnesses were Casey's friend and every time that they said they saw Casey with Caylee, it was a loving relationship and no one provided evidence to the contrary

...

Yeah, the behavior was bizarre, but what I took from that is that the family was very dysfunctional. Because they were so dysfunctional, that was the norm for them. Casey didn't just start lying for the first 31 days [after Caylee disappeared]. She had been lying for the past two years...I felt it was the norm for her

I guess it came down to the fact that the prosecution couldn't even prove that a homicide occurred; a jury can hardly convict someone of murder if they can't even be convinced that a murder took place, looks like accidental drowning is the most likely cause of death.

Bull****, they were idiots. It doesn't matter if there is "reasonable doubt" what matters is putting that child-killer in prison! The jurors should be absolutely ashamed of themselves, they shouldn't have kept an "open mind" about it. They at least should have become a hung jury and gone for a mistrial so this murderer would have to go back to trial.

Have you ever been to West Virginia or Appalachia where there are generations after generations of people conceived in incest? You are correct in that a child conceived in incest is no less valuable to the Lord and no less deserving of life than someone not conceived in incest.

I actually live about 90 mins fromWest Virginia and its not as prevalent as folks would make it seem, though it does happen.

Quote

However, those born due to incest face greater health issues and premature death

So could the same be said for crack babies? Premies?

Quote

The first number of witnesses were Casey's friend and every time that they said they saw Casey with Caylee, it was a loving relationship and no one provided evidence to the contrary

I doubt very seriously many abusers drop kick their kids in public. I know it didnt happen to me like that.

primuspilus

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Oh well, she will commit another crime, she has 60-65 years left in her life. That is a long time to screw up again and be dealt the justice that should have been done before.

It took OJ only 12 years to commit another crime. Criminals inevitably end up back in trouble. Considering that Casey is a chronic liar and has already gotten away with one murder, I can definitely see her winding back up in front of a judge again.

Abortion and filicide are NEVER EVER JUSTIFIED IN ANY SITUATION, EVER!!!!

Tone it down.

I'm not calling for an eye for an eye. I've never said I thought she should put to death. Justice needs to be served. I believe life in prison is adequate enough.

Also, to explain my position on ostracizing/shunning her... She murdered her child, then immediately went out and started partying, drinking, dancing, doing things she would have done prior to having her child. She clearly seeks to be a socialite and to live a life like that. She needs to be deprived of that, and so whenever she seeks to "party it up", those people should immediately ignore her and/or throw her out of the party/establishment. You are ostracizing/shunning her because she seeks to be like a socialite (and that is probably one reason she murdered her child) and so you are depriving her of that lifestyle.

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Have you ever been to West Virginia or Appalachia where there are generations after generations of people conceived in incest? You are correct in that a child conceived in incest is no less valuable to the Lord and no less deserving of life than someone not conceived in incest.

I actually live about 90 mins fromWest Virginia and its not as prevalent as folks would make it seem, though it does happen.

The State has cracked down on incest due to the costs associated with health problems. Your points about crack babies and premature babies are well taken; however, since society is now programmed to accept marriages, familes and children as disposable items, the Government has to ensure that parents do not blatantly kill their children (or spouses killing each other) to avoid any responsibility for taking care of them via child support, division of marital property and alimony respectively.

You fail to see why this troubles me? So, if the state can't win a criminal case, individuals should then bring a civil case where the standards of evidence are more in the prosecution's favor? Can you imagine if that happened every time the state lost a jury trial? Granted, I know such will not happen. But, that would really distort the sense of equality under the law. If the state fails and if you have money, sue them! Double jeopardy is a check on an overzealous state to deprive the individual of his/her constitutional liberties, but just because the state fails does not grant an individual the responsibility to carry out what the state could not.

That being said, aren't we already in an over-litigious country as it is? Do we really need MORE trials?

Okay, I think I follow.

The right to bring a civil action belongs to the "victim", though, not the state. Indeed, where the state declines to bring a criminal prosecution for lack of evidence or some more nefarious reason, the civil suit is often the only remedy available to the victim (and arguably the only means of punishing the wrong-doer).

Also, the stress of being indicted for a criminal offence is arguably not as great as the threat of having to hand over some money. Doesn't the double jeopardy principle exist to spare the accused from the pain of having to live out a criminal trial all over again? A civil suit is a different creature to a criminal trial, though I'm sure it is quite stressful being sued!

I doubt a civil lawsuit will even be an issue here because of a fundamental difference with the OJ trial: OJ actually had money to loose. This young girl didn't have much to start out with and has spent the last two and a half years in jail and, as the old saying goes, you can't get milk from a turnip.

With that said, I do have a fundamental objection to our system of torts. Torts should be restricted to real and proven financial loss. So to apply to a wrongful death lawsuit, if someone were responsible for a family's primary breadwinner's death, the family should be able to sue to for an amount comparable to lost wages...but for the loss of a child, yes there is great emotional harm done, but limited financial harm, in fact the family's financial state is probably improved without having to care for the child so there should be no standing for a civil lawsuit. I know it sounds cold, but we are in dire need of tort reform and some pragmatic reforms would benefit our entire economy from small businesses to the healthcare industry.

But even then, being able to bring a civil lawsuit against someone for a crime of which they were acquitted in criminal court does smack of double jeopardy, just like the feds being able to bring a civil rights charge against an individual that was acquitted of the same crime by the state court smacks of double jeopardy. Both of these are anomalies in our legal system that have arisen from the mob's desire for revenge rather than from a well ordered system of justice.

Insurance companies use a Life Value calculation that I thought was used in court as well. I could be wrong. They have a formula to come up with the financial value of a person. It depends and earnings, education, age, etc etc... Kinda cold but probably accurate.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

You fail to see why this troubles me? So, if the state can't win a criminal case, individuals should then bring a civil case where the standards of evidence are more in the prosecution's favor? Can you imagine if that happened every time the state lost a jury trial? Granted, I know such will not happen. But, that would really distort the sense of equality under the law. If the state fails and if you have money, sue them! Double jeopardy is a check on an overzealous state to deprive the individual of his/her constitutional liberties, but just because the state fails does not grant an individual the responsibility to carry out what the state could not.

That being said, aren't we already in an over-litigious country as it is? Do we really need MORE trials?

Okay, I think I follow.

The right to bring a civil action belongs to the "victim", though, not the state. Indeed, where the state declines to bring a criminal prosecution for lack of evidence or some more nefarious reason, the civil suit is often the only remedy available to the victim (and arguably the only means of punishing the wrong-doer).

Also, the stress of being indicted for a criminal offence is arguably not as great as the threat of having to hand over some money. Doesn't the double jeopardy principle exist to spare the accused from the pain of having to live out a criminal trial all over again? A civil suit is a different creature to a criminal trial, though I'm sure it is quite stressful being sued!

I doubt a civil lawsuit will even be an issue here because of a fundamental difference with the OJ trial: OJ actually had money to loose. This young girl didn't have much to start out with and has spent the last two and a half years in jail and, as the old saying goes, you can't get milk from a turnip.

With that said, I do have a fundamental objection to our system of torts. Torts should be restricted to real and proven financial loss. So to apply to a wrongful death lawsuit, if someone were responsible for a family's primary breadwinner's death, the family should be able to sue to for an amount comparable to lost wages...but for the loss of a child, yes there is great emotional harm done, but limited financial harm, in fact the family's financial state is probably improved without having to care for the child so there should be no standing for a civil lawsuit. I know it sounds cold, but we are in dire need of tort reform and some pragmatic reforms would benefit our entire economy from small businesses to the healthcare industry.

But even then, being able to bring a civil lawsuit against someone for a crime of which they were acquitted in criminal court does smack of double jeopardy, just like the feds being able to bring a civil rights charge against an individual that was acquitted of the same crime by the state court smacks of double jeopardy. Both of these are anomalies in our legal system that have arisen from the mob's desire for revenge rather than from a well ordered system of justice.

Insurance companies use a Life Value calculation that I thought was used in court as well. I could be wrong. They have a formula to come up with the financial value of a person. It depends and earnings, education, age, etc etc... Kinda cold but probably accurate.

They do use it in court, as they should; what I object to is adding money punitive and 'pain and suffering' judgements to the base amount. That's what's caused our tort system to spin out of control and allows people to get 2 million dollars for spilling their coffee on their lap and drives the cost of health care up to unrealistic amounts.

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote

I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

Also, to explain my position on ostracizing/shunning her... She murdered her child, then immediately went out and started partying, drinking, dancing, doing things she would have done prior to having her child. She clearly seeks to be a socialite and to live a life like that.

Not everyone mourns the same way. No one is a mind reader and Casey gave off uncertain body language especially at the news she was acquitted. No smiling, no exuberant celebration ... just tears and sadness.

and so whenever she seeks to "party it up", those people should immediately ignore her and/or throw her out of the party/establishment.

She has a right to party. If her family is dysfunctional, she should leave especially if her family has some hold or control on Casey. Casey's situation doesn't resemble Elizabeth Smart's or Jaycee Dugard's - Casey ought to seek therapy and leave her dysfunctional home. Just as Elizabeth and Jaycee are healing from their captive experiences (and remember that Jaycee has 2 teen-aged kids with her former captor) I believe Casey can heal, although that will take a long time.

The State has cracked down on incest due to the costs associated with health problems. Your points about crack babies and premature babies are well taken; however, since society is now programmed to accept marriages, familes and children as disposable items, the Government has to ensure that parents do not blatantly kill their children (or spouses killing each other) to avoid any responsibility for taking care of them via child support, division of marital property and alimony respectively

I understand you view on this and agree that it is, unfortunately, a sign of the times.

Quote

Insurance companies use a Life Value calculation that I thought was used in court as well. I could be wrong. They have a formula to come up with the financial value of a person. It depends and earnings, education, age, etc etc... Kinda cold but probably accurate.

I do this for a living and let me tell you....frighteningly accurate....especially when they think you're gonna die.

I used to believe in the Death Penalty (I pretty much hold the belief that the state does not own my life and therefore, is illogical for them to take it from me) but I gotta say that in some instances, I would not be so upset if well.....*ahem*

Quote

Not everyone mourns the same way. No one is a mind reader and Casey gave off uncertain body language especially at the news she was acquitted. No smiling, no exuberant celebration ... just tears and sadness.

Could have been tears of happiness too.

Quote

Not everyone mourns the same way

True, but some things are innate to people in general, and smiling, having a great time goofing off while your child is missing is usually not one of them. I wont say she DID IT, but I do think she knows alot more than she's saying....maybe there was a pay off, or someone did her a favor, but she is not innocent in this, morally speaking, by a long shot.

primuspilus

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Also, to explain my position on ostracizing/shunning her... She murdered her child, then immediately went out and started partying, drinking, dancing, doing things she would have done prior to having her child. She clearly seeks to be a socialite and to live a life like that.

Not everyone mourns the same way. No one is a mind reader and Casey gave off uncertain body language especially at the news she was acquitted. No smiling, no exuberant celebration ... just tears and sadness.

and so whenever she seeks to "party it up", those people should immediately ignore her and/or throw her out of the party/establishment.

She has a right to party. If her family is dysfunctional, she should leave especially if her family has some hold or control on Casey. Casey's situation doesn't resemble Elizabeth Smart's or Jaycee Dugard's - Casey ought to seek therapy and leave her dysfunctional home. Just as Elizabeth and Jaycee are healing from their captive experiences (and remember that Jaycee has 2 teen-aged kids with her former captor) I believe Casey can heal, although that will take a long time.

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote

I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote

I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote

I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

True, but some things are innate to people in general, and smiling, having a great time goofing off while your child is missing is usually not one of them. I wont say she DID IT, but I do think she knows alot more than she's saying....maybe there was a pay off, or someone did her a favor, but she is not innocent in this, morally speaking, by a long shot.

People deal with mourning in different ways, one way is to try and distract ones self. And drinking is a very common way for people to deal with death and loss, I've spent many nights at the bar with people who have just lost a loved one after a heart attack or a long battle with cancer, it helps to have a few drinks, be in public, socialize, give your life some semblance of normality, help you to, at lest temporarily, forget your despair; and yes, I've also known many people who go out and have a series of one night stands when mourning, it gives them a feeling of intimacy, a connection to another human being that allows them to distract themselves from the pain of having just lost a relative with whom they also had a intimate (though generally non-sexual) relationship.

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote

I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

People deal with mourning in different ways, one way is to try and distract ones self. And drinking is a very common way for people to deal with death and loss, I've spent many nights at the bar with people who have just lost a loved one after a heart attack or a long battle with cancer, it helps to have a few drinks, be in public, socialize, give your life some semblance of normality, help you to, at lest temporarily, forget your despair; and yes, I've also known many people who go out and have a series of one night stands when mourning, it gives them a feeling of intimacy, a connection to another human being that allows them to distract themselves from the pain of having just lost a relative with whom they also had a intimate (though generally non-sexual) relationship.

I understand what you're saying, and agree to a point. However, what about also entering a "hot body" contest? I believe she admitted to that too. She was convicted of lying to the police on multiple counts. Therefore, she had to have been hiding something.

primuspilus

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote

I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

Really neither does yours...

Nope, but mine has been vindicated by the courts.

Which might theoretically work, but practically they fail, as in the Ken McElroy case.

He had be prosecuted 22 times, 21 of those without sufficient evidence and once released on bail. After that one trial, when released on bond, he went and threatened the person that he was accused of trying to kill. The next day, he showed up at a bar, walked outside, got in his truck, and was shot by 1 or more gunmen. There were over 40 witnesses and all of them said that they didn't see anything. (save for his wife)He had raped, abused, committing arson, was a cattle rustler, a pedophile and had robbed many people. The law theoretically worked because there wasn't ever sufficient evidence to convict him. So finally, vigilante justice had to succeed where the law (though it worked theoretically) had failed. Sadly it ended in his death, but justice was done...

The point is not that vigilantes should be allowed to kill freely. The point is that the law worked according to theory, as they couldn't sufficiently convict him. But in all practicality, it had failed, forcing the townspeople to take matters into their own hands.

People deal with mourning in different ways, one way is to try and distract ones self. And drinking is a very common way for people to deal with death and loss, I've spent many nights at the bar with people who have just lost a loved one after a heart attack or a long battle with cancer, it helps to have a few drinks, be in public, socialize, give your life some semblance of normality, help you to, at lest temporarily, forget your despair; and yes, I've also known many people who go out and have a series of one night stands when mourning, it gives them a feeling of intimacy, a connection to another human being that allows them to distract themselves from the pain of having just lost a relative with whom they also had a intimate (though generally non-sexual) relationship.

I understand what you're saying, and agree to a point. However, what about also entering a "hot body" contest?

She wanted to be the center of attention, attention that would distract her from what she was going through. Death has long been a complex part of our emotional existence, we've developed thousands of different religions to try to explain and understand it, many of which are far stranger than a young girl wanting to be in public, socialize, and feel some semblance of intimacy. If we're to start convicting people in court based on their preferred way of mourning, I fear none of us are safe.

Quote

I believe she admitted to that too. She was convicted of lying to the police on multiple counts. Therefore, she had to have been hiding something.

Yes, she lied, but the problem is that we have no idea why. Was it fear because she thought the circumstances looked suspicious? Maybe her abusive father did it, if the accusations made against him in open court are true, it's likely he holds considerable sway over her and had long conditioned her to lie in his defense. Maybe it was an accident that happened when she confronted her father about abusing her daughter? Maybe her daughter was being abused and as a long victim of abuse killed her daughter to spare her the abuse? Maybe she is just a sociopath?

The problem is that those all remain viable possibilities, even after the evidence was submitted. The prosecution was trying to convince the Jury of the last narrative, but the evidence just wasn't there. It's the prosecutor's job to prove their narrative beyond a reasonable doubt, they failed to do their job and the Jury rendered the appropriate verdict.

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote

I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

Really neither does yours...

Nope, but mine has been vindicated by the courts.

Which might theoretically work, but practically they fail, as in the Ken McElroy case.

He had be prosecuted 22 times, 21 of those without sufficient evidence and once released on bail. After that one trial, when released on bond, he went and threatened the person that he was accused of trying to kill. The next day, he showed up at a bar, walked outside, got in his truck, and was shot by 1 or more gunmen. There were over 40 witnesses and all of them said that they didn't see anything. (save for his wife)He had raped, abused, committing arson, was a cattle rustler, a pedophile and had robbed many people. The law theoretically worked because there wasn't ever sufficient evidence to convict him. So finally, vigilante justice had to succeed where the law (though it worked theoretically) had failed. Sadly it ended in his death, but justice was done...

The point is not that vigilantes should be allowed to kill freely. The point is that the law worked according to theory, as they couldn't sufficiently convict him. But in all practicality, it had failed, forcing the townspeople to take matters into their own hands.

No, justice was not done, he was murdered in cold blood and the murderer is living free when he should be brought to trial for his crimes and apparently he had many accomplices who should also face the justice system; only before a court of law can their guilt or innocence be determined. And, frankly, no guilty man is prosecuted 22 times and gets off every time; it's obvious that a prosecutor was out to get him, even though he had no real evidence of any wrong doing and likely even knew he was not guilty. Someone had it in for him and kept throwing charges against the courts until one finally stuck, and even that case was so poorly constructed that he was released by the appellate court. What you have shown is our judicial system at its worst, a personal vendetta ruining the life of an obviously innocent man. Thankfully, our system worked better in this case.